Recent updates to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which governs England’s planning system, signal important progress in tackling the nation’s housing challenges. However, Nicole I. Guler, a chartered town planner at Urbanist Architecture, warns that these revisions also present potential complications and risks.
As England struggles with an ongoing housing crisis, the latest changes to the NPPF are intended to open up new avenues for development. Despite this, Nicole I. Guler cautions that these revisions may not be the straightforward solution they are perceived to be. While Labour’s Green Belt proposals have been criticised for their limited scope, Guler argues that the new Grey Belt reforms within the NPPF could either bolster or fracture the nation’s housing strategy.
“The recent NPPF revisions and the introduction of the Grey Belt are indeed positive steps,” Guler acknowledges. “However, these changes come with caveats that require careful scrutiny. Although defining the Grey Belt—which covers previously developed land and areas within the Green Belt that contribute minimally to its key purposes—is a welcome move, the definition is still too broad and susceptible to subjective interpretation. This ambiguity could lead to significant inconsistencies across regions, which may exacerbate the very disparities these reforms are designed to resolve.”
Guler, whose new book ‘Green Light to Green Belt Developments’ provides a thorough analysis of the challenges and opportunities surrounding Green Belt land, emphasises the complexities of managing this contentious issue. “On a strategic scale, almost all Green Belt land plays a significant role in at least one of its key purposes, whether it’s preventing urban sprawl, protecting the countryside from encroachment, or preserving the setting and character of historic towns,” she explains. “The challenge, however, is that land which might seem to offer a ‘limited contribution’ based on a superficial assessment could actually be crucial in maintaining the broader functions of the Green Belt. This vagueness is likely to lead to a fragmented approach to land development, where some regions may push aggressively for Grey Belt land releases, while others resist, resulting in an uneven distribution of new housing projects across the country.”
Guler also expresses concerns about the potential consequences of reintroducing the five-year housing land supply requirement. While this measure is intended to accelerate housing delivery, it could also empower developers, particularly in areas with outdated local plans. “This could lead to developments that are more developer-driven than community-oriented, possibly resulting in generic housing estates that fail to integrate with local infrastructure or address the specific needs of the community,” she warns.
“The emphasis on maintaining a sufficient housing supply is essential, but without appropriate checks and balances, there’s a risk of encouraging developments that focus on quantity over quality. Equally crucial is a commitment to high-quality housing design and the creation of sustainable communities. It’s not sufficient to simply increase the volume of housing; we must prioritise good design that complements the local context, enhances public spaces, and promotes long-term sustainability. Only by integrating these elements can we ensure that new developments enrich the character of our towns and cities.”
Guler also raises questions about the financial feasibility of projects under the new “golden rules” for developing on Grey Belt land. These rules, which include mandates for 50% affordable housing and necessary infrastructure improvements, are laudable but could prove challenging to implement. “The success of these initiatives will largely depend on the ability to balance these requirements with the economic realities faced by developers, particularly in regions where land values and construction costs vary significantly,” she explains. “Without a well-calibrated approach, these well-intentioned rules could either stymie development or result in compromises that diminish their intended public benefits.”
Guler concludes by stressing, “Changing planning regulations to facilitate the construction of 1.5 million new homes is an ambitious goal. However, without stricter guidelines and a fair approach across all regions, this ambition risks falling short. To truly address the housing crisis while safeguarding the unique qualities of the Green Belt, it’s essential that these reforms are implemented with both precision and flexibility, ensuring that development meets the highest standards of design and sustainability.”
